You're presuming that the IC somehow came up with the data. Not so; the data came up with itself: http://www.eetimes.com/author.... (one of a multitude of articles about this).
Ok, someone created that data, it didn't *really* create itself; but it wasn't the IC. Nor (for better or for worse) is the IC the only organization that wants to sift through data.
I'm still using my Windows phone, but the battery is starting to go down faster than it used to (I have to charge it every two days). And its camera isn't the best. But then I've dropped it on concrete, and it still ticks! And I do like the Windows UI, much better than the Android UI (I used to have an Android phone).
"The increase in water temp is increasing the power of the storms... Yes, we've had 'very quiet' hurricane seasons these past years, because our metric for what counts as a hurricane is arbitrary therefore it looks like we've had a drought."
I'm missing s.t. in your argument about the metric. You seem to be saying on the one hand that given fifty-odd years of global warming, there should be some stronger hurricanes now (first line above). On the other hand, our metric is arbitrary (second quoted line above)...which means what? Obviously it doesn't mean that we don't count storms that are stronger than hurricanes, because we haven't had any of those, regardless of your metric. So the only other thing it can mean is that we don't count storms that are weaker than "category 1 hurricanes". But that only makes sense if you're claiming that those are increasing in number, which you don't; instead you're saying that storms should be getting stronger, not that there will be more (relatively) weak storms.
One of Darwin's mysteries, which he talks about in The Origin of Species, was how variability didn't just get washed out in populations, in the same way that a spoonful of sugar gets washed out in a bathtub of water. The answer was that inheritance was a discrete variable, not a continuous variable, i.e. genes. While it's true that Mendel didn't (afaik) set out to solve this mystery, nor does it make him the person who did "the pioneering work in evolution" (in the words of the poster at the top of this thread), it did have a huge influence on the study of evolution.
(IIRC, Darwin's other big mystery was the apparently sudden appearance of fossils at the base of the Cambrian.)
Oysters aren't fish, they're not even vertebrates (nor chordates). And the original technical article (here: https://www.nature.com/article...) did NOT say that the oysters ate plastic, on the contrary, "The Pacific oysters came from aquaculture in urban bays and had anthropogenic debris composed entirely of fibers." (The scientists were not able to ID the fibers; could have been cotton, could have been polyester, or...) In fact, the vast majority of the "anthropogenic" materials the study found in fish caught on the west coast of the US were fibers, not (necessarily) plastic. Plastic was only common in fish bought at a market in Indonesia. (I don't know how much of the seafood we eat comes from Indonesia, nor what fish caught in other places besides Indonesia and the west coast of the US might ingest.)
That said, I do think it would be good to reduced the amount of plastic in the ocean.
If the plane accelerated to 600 mph right off the runway, and went from 600 to zero after it touched down on the runway at the other end, yes. In fact airplanes spend a good deal more time in the air at much slower speeds, particularly on short hops. I just did a bit of googling of flights, trying to find a 90 minute flight here in the US. Richmond VA to New York is ~1h 20m, and the road trip is 330 miles, a bit over 5 hours (with a lot of that going around Washington DC and through Baltimore; not sure what cities the OP would go by/ through on the way to Verona, since s/he didn't say where they were starting from). I think most people would drive that without an overnight.
However--I also tried Portland to SF, a 1h 40m flight according to Google. By road 600 miles, almost 11 hours, so closer to your estimate. Not sure why the huge difference between Richmond--NY on the one hand, and Portland--SF on the other. (Seattle -- SF 2 hrs by plane, 13 hours by car. Been there, done that. When I was younger.)
"you need to define the word 'smart'": I think the original poster would define it as "like me" (like him, that is, not like the me who's writing this now). That is the basis of racism, class-ism, and so forth.
Back in the 70s (yes, the 1970s), I recall passing cruise liners that had roughly half a bazillion lights on. I don't know whether they still do that. IIRC, merchant ships would normally not have more lights on than they needed, i.e. they would (as you say) have just the navigation lights while underway.
"The Law of Differential Masses says the larger ship gets right-of-way." No it does not, and afaict the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" says nothing whatsoever about ships, right-of-way, etc. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea does have to do with boats and ships, but it definitely does not say anything about bigger vs. smaller; the lack of maneuverability has to do with things like laying cables, launching aircraft, dredging, UNREP, towing other vessels, etc.
No it does not say that. You might want to look at the facts before you spout off. You might for example look at definition g here: https://archive.is/20110721192.... It does say "not limited to", but that definitely does not mean "bigger".
You seem to know what you're talking about. Kepler's "laws" describe two bodies in orbit around each other, with one much more massive than the other, and at a substantial distance. Obviously (well, I _guess_ it's obvious), the rotation of gaseous bodies (like the Sun) is different; an hydrogen atom in the photosphere is not in _orbit_, so its behavior is not described by Kepler's (or Newton's) laws.
While it's a long ways to the next star in the arm of a galaxy, it's still not quite the same as if our Sun was orbiting around the center of the Milky Way with nothing anywhere near. Do the other stars in our arm of the Milky Way (and similarly in other galaxies) have an effect on our speed going around the Milky Way? Or is the fact that there is (roughly) an equal number of stars in all directions negate any such effect, so that it's as if we were orbiting the core with nothing else around?
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. What would be the advantages/ disadvantages vs. XMing? XMing is pretty transparent to me--as I say, I just have it in my startup folder. Would I use XRDP the same way? I have heard that there are Linux gui-based applications that don't play well with XMing (I think I had issues with other pdf viewers before I found mupdf), is XRDP more reliable?
In partial answer to my own question, there's this: https://icesquare.com/wordpres.... I haven't tried it all yet, but it looks like part of the answer is that xming works with individual apps, whereas xrdp is for running whole desktops. But maybe I misunderstand...
"WSL has no GUI support": no advertised support, but in fact some Linux GUIs work just fine. You have to run Xming (I have it in my startup folder), and then install them using apt-get. I'm running both mupdf and the Linux version of jEdit that way; I suspect many (but not all) other Linux gui-based programs would run that way as well.
Adobe Acrobat (which I'm assuming looks the same as Adobe's reader, maybe bad assumption) is the one piece of software that makes Edge look good. Sort of like ISIS making Al Qaeda look good--but I digress... Each iteration of Acrobat has gotten a worse UI. Huge icons that you can't get rid of, everything is flat so you can't tell what is turned on or off, menu no longer makes sense, and so on and on. At home, I use the free version of PDF-XChange Editor for reading (and annotating) PDFs; highly recommended.
"Windows 10 is just a HUGE regression over Windows 7." Agreed. Fortunately, I've been able to get rid of some of the regression using Classic Start Menu and WinAero Tweaker, including most importantly for me the stupid way that the top bar on apps doesn't change color to tell whether it has keyboard focus. (I don't think it works for MsOffice, but I don't have that installed, so I can't tell.)
Does anyone know why the top bar on an app has to be so big? It used to be much smaller (i.e. not take up so much screen real estate) under Win7. It's one Win10 annoyance that I haven't been able to get rid of.
Huh? The original post by dnaumov of 29 July 10:41 AM, which is second up from your post, says Linux files aren't accessible from Windows. Your post is the other way around--Windows files accessible from Linux. The latter is of course a design goal, and works just fine--I'm posting as a break from editing.tex files using a Windows app (jEdit), which I then convert to PDF using latex or xelatex under bash.
When I first started using bash-in-Windows, I did in fact edit my.bashrc file from windows (using jEdit). That was a mistake, as I realized when bash would no longer start up, and upon reading the documentation. I re-installed the entire thing, and now when I want to edit my.bashrc (etc.) file, I use vim in bash (actually, I can also start a separate Linux version of jEdit from there, but I seldom do so). At least back then (six months ago?), it wasn't impossible to access Linux files from Windows, it was just a Very Bad Idea.
Slashdot Mirror
You're presuming that the IC somehow came up with the data. Not so; the data came up with itself: http://www.eetimes.com/author.... (one of a multitude of articles about this).
Ok, someone created that data, it didn't *really* create itself; but it wasn't the IC. Nor (for better or for worse) is the IC the only organization that wants to sift through data.
I'm still using my Windows phone, but the battery is starting to go down faster than it used to (I have to charge it every two days). And its camera isn't the best. But then I've dropped it on concrete, and it still ticks! And I do like the Windows UI, much better than the Android UI (I used to have an Android phone).
Pshaw, what's 20 years. Why when I was a boy in Illinois, we had three feet of snow from December through March, and school was uphill both ways.
--
My Other Computer is a CDC 170-750. And you set the boot loader with toggle switches.
"The increase in water temp is increasing the power of the storms...
Yes, we've had 'very quiet' hurricane seasons these past years, because our metric
for what counts as a hurricane is arbitrary therefore it looks like we've had a drought."
I'm missing s.t. in your argument about the metric. You seem to be saying on the one hand that given fifty-odd years of global warming, there should be some stronger hurricanes now (first line above). On the other hand, our metric is arbitrary (second quoted line above)...which means what? Obviously it doesn't mean that we don't count storms that are stronger than hurricanes, because we haven't had any of those, regardless of your metric. So the only other thing it can mean is that we don't count storms that are weaker than "category 1 hurricanes". But that only makes sense if you're claiming that those are increasing in number, which you don't; instead you're saying that storms should be getting stronger, not that there will be more (relatively) weak storms.
Wait, wait! I'm a 67 year old man. How dare you send any 63 year young women away!
One of Darwin's mysteries, which he talks about in The Origin of Species, was how variability didn't just get washed out in populations, in the same way that a spoonful of sugar gets washed out in a bathtub of water. The answer was that inheritance was a discrete variable, not a continuous variable, i.e. genes. While it's true that Mendel didn't (afaik) set out to solve this mystery, nor does it make him the person who did "the pioneering work in evolution" (in the words of the poster at the top of this thread), it did have a huge influence on the study of evolution.
(IIRC, Darwin's other big mystery was the apparently sudden appearance of fossils at the base of the Cambrian.)
Oysters aren't fish, they're not even vertebrates (nor chordates). And the original technical article (here: https://www.nature.com/article...) did NOT say that the oysters ate plastic, on the contrary, "The Pacific oysters came from aquaculture in urban bays and had anthropogenic debris composed entirely of fibers." (The scientists were not able to ID the fibers; could have been cotton, could have been polyester, or...) In fact, the vast majority of the "anthropogenic" materials the study found in fish caught on the west coast of the US were fibers, not (necessarily) plastic. Plastic was only common in fish bought at a market in Indonesia. (I don't know how much of the seafood we eat comes from Indonesia, nor what fish caught in other places besides Indonesia and the west coast of the US might ingest.)
That said, I do think it would be good to reduced the amount of plastic in the ocean.
If the plane accelerated to 600 mph right off the runway, and went from 600 to zero after it touched down on the runway at the other end, yes. In fact airplanes spend a good deal more time in the air at much slower speeds, particularly on short hops. I just did a bit of googling of flights, trying to find a 90 minute flight here in the US. Richmond VA to New York is ~1h 20m, and the road trip is 330 miles, a bit over 5 hours (with a lot of that going around Washington DC and through Baltimore; not sure what cities the OP would go by/ through on the way to Verona, since s/he didn't say where they were starting from). I think most people would drive that without an overnight.
However--I also tried Portland to SF, a 1h 40m flight according to Google. By road 600 miles, almost 11 hours, so closer to your estimate. Not sure why the huge difference between Richmond--NY on the one hand, and Portland--SF on the other. (Seattle -- SF 2 hrs by plane, 13 hours by car. Been there, done that. When I was younger.)
"you need to define the word 'smart'": I think the original poster would define it as "like me" (like him, that is, not like the me who's writing this now). That is the basis of racism, class-ism, and so forth.
Back in the 70s (yes, the 1970s), I recall passing cruise liners that had roughly half a bazillion lights on. I don't know whether they still do that. IIRC, merchant ships would normally not have more lights on than they needed, i.e. they would (as you say) have just the navigation lights while underway.
We call them Portholes.
"The Law of Differential Masses says the larger ship gets right-of-way." No it does not, and afaict the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" says nothing whatsoever about ships, right-of-way, etc. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea does have to do with boats and ships, but it definitely does not say anything about bigger vs. smaller; the lack of maneuverability has to do with things like laying cables, launching aircraft, dredging, UNREP, towing other vessels, etc.
No it does not say that. You might want to look at the facts before you spout off. You might for example look at definition g here: https://archive.is/20110721192.... It does say "not limited to", but that definitely does not mean "bigger".
You seem to know what you're talking about. Kepler's "laws" describe two bodies in orbit around each other, with one much more massive than the other, and at a substantial distance. Obviously (well, I _guess_ it's obvious), the rotation of gaseous bodies (like the Sun) is different; an hydrogen atom in the photosphere is not in _orbit_, so its behavior is not described by Kepler's (or Newton's) laws.
While it's a long ways to the next star in the arm of a galaxy, it's still not quite the same as if our Sun was orbiting around the center of the Milky Way with nothing anywhere near. Do the other stars in our arm of the Milky Way (and similarly in other galaxies) have an effect on our speed going around the Milky Way? Or is the fact that there is (roughly) an equal number of stars in all directions negate any such effect, so that it's as if we were orbiting the core with nothing else around?
Where's the job for the xenolinguist? That's the one I'm waiting for.
Emilio Sandoz
"There are an infinite number of halves." No, only finite.
On the other hand, there is probably an infinite number of halve-nots.
Right, but you only have to buy the suit once.
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. What would be the advantages/ disadvantages vs. XMing? XMing is pretty transparent to me--as I say, I just have it in my startup folder. Would I use XRDP the same way? I have heard that there are Linux gui-based applications that don't play well with XMing (I think I had issues with other pdf viewers before I found mupdf), is XRDP more reliable?
In partial answer to my own question, there's this: https://icesquare.com/wordpres.... I haven't tried it all yet, but it looks like part of the answer is that xming works with individual apps, whereas xrdp is for running whole desktops. But maybe I misunderstand...
"WSL has no GUI support": no advertised support, but in fact some Linux GUIs work just fine. You have to run Xming (I have it in my startup folder), and then install them using apt-get. I'm running both mupdf and the Linux version of jEdit that way; I suspect many (but not all) other Linux gui-based programs would run that way as well.
Contact me directly, I'll sell you one!
Adobe Acrobat (which I'm assuming looks the same as Adobe's reader, maybe bad assumption) is the one piece of software that makes Edge look good. Sort of like ISIS making Al Qaeda look good--but I digress... Each iteration of Acrobat has gotten a worse UI. Huge icons that you can't get rid of, everything is flat so you can't tell what is turned on or off, menu no longer makes sense, and so on and on. At home, I use the free version of PDF-XChange Editor for reading (and annotating) PDFs; highly recommended.
I thought the Linux (ok, not Unix...) philosophy was this: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-...
"Windows 10 is just a HUGE regression over Windows 7." Agreed. Fortunately, I've been able to get rid of some of the regression using Classic Start Menu and WinAero Tweaker, including most importantly for me the stupid way that the top bar on apps doesn't change color to tell whether it has keyboard focus. (I don't think it works for MsOffice, but I don't have that installed, so I can't tell.)
Does anyone know why the top bar on an app has to be so big? It used to be much smaller (i.e. not take up so much screen real estate) under Win7. It's one Win10 annoyance that I haven't been able to get rid of.
Huh? The original post by dnaumov of 29 July 10:41 AM, which is second up from your post, says Linux files aren't accessible from Windows. Your post is the other way around--Windows files accessible from Linux. The latter is of course a design goal, and works just fine--I'm posting as a break from editing .tex files using a Windows app (jEdit), which I then convert to PDF using latex or xelatex under bash.
When I first started using bash-in-Windows, I did in fact edit my .bashrc file from windows (using jEdit). That was a mistake, as I realized when bash would no longer start up, and upon reading the documentation. I re-installed the entire thing, and now when I want to edit my .bashrc (etc.) file, I use vim in bash (actually, I can also start a separate Linux version of jEdit from there, but I seldom do so). At least back then (six months ago?), it wasn't impossible to access Linux files from Windows, it was just a Very Bad Idea.
I wish *I* knew how to make money by being wrong, I'd be really really wealthy by now.